Returnable and reusable containers are utilized by manufacturers to ship a variety of different products to end users, such as assembly plants. For example, an automobile assembly plant utilizes parts from a number of different parts manufacturers or suppliers. These suppliers ship their respective parts to the assembly plant in reusable containers, and the parts are then removed from the containers, assembled into a finished product, and the empty containers are then returned to the parts suppliers for use in subsequent shipments.
The return and reuse of empty containers results in a substantial cost savings for the supplier and/or the end manufacturer or assembler because reuse reduces the number of new containers which must be purchased. Furthermore, the returned containers alleviate the assembly plant's task and associated costs with storing, destroying, or otherwise disposing of the containers.
While returnable and reusable containers reduce costs by eliminating the need to constantly purchase new containers and reduce disposal costs, it may still be relatively costly to provide for their return shipment. The shipping rate for return shipment of empty containers is typically based upon the volume of the container and upon the number of containers which might be situated in a return vehicle. Historically, there was a one-to-one (1:1) return-to-shipment ratio because an empty container occupied the same shipping space or volume as a full container. Therefore, there was not much of a shipping cost savings when returning empty reusable containers even though empty containers weighed less.
Furthermore, the cost of storing conventional reusable containers may further reduce the other economic benefits they offer because empty containers also require the same warehouse or storage space as full containers. Container storage may be necessary at the plant before a return shipment can be arranged. Similarly, the supplier will store containers on site so as to have them ready for shipment. Storage space is valuable and may be limited, and it is usually desirable to utilize the space for something other than bulky, empty containers waiting to be shipped or returned. Therefore, the economic benefits provided by currently available reusable containers is reduced by the cost, both to the end user assembly plant and supplier, of return shipment and pre-return or post-return storage space requirements.
Some currently available reusable containers have addressed such problems by being collapsible into a smaller size or volume to thereby require less space when returned or stored. For example, some available reusable containers are collapsible into a volume essentially one-third (⅓) or one-fourth (¼) of their volume when shipped full of product. This provides a three-to-one (3:1) or four-to-one (4:1) return-to-shipment ratio, and thus, provides a substantial savings in return shipment costs. That is, a truck returning the containers to the originating site can carry three or four times the number of empty, collapsed containers as full containers. Additionally, collapsed, stored containers require substantially less storage space.
While such containers address the issue of return shipment and storage costs, they still have certain drawbacks. For example, for the containers to be collapsible, it is necessary to utilize separate dunnage elements, such as partitions or separating structures, in the container during shipment. Dunnage elements are used for separating and protecting the products shipped in the container. The dunnage elements must be handled separately from the container during shipment and return. That is, when the container has been assembled into an erected form for shipment and dunnage elements are to be utilized, the dunnage must be separately inserted and secured within the container. Subsequently, prior to return shipment, any dunnage elements utilized within the container must be detached and removed therefrom before the container can be collapsed into the smaller, returnable shape. The dunnage elements are then discarded or otherwise disposed of by the assembly plant, further adding to the plant's overall cost for the shipment.
Furthermore, the supplier incurs additional costs by constructing or acquiring new dunnage elements each time the returned container is reused. Additionally, the labor costs associated with constructing and installing dunnage elements in a container, and the additional labor for collapsing, removing and disposing of the dunnage elements after shipment, further increases the overall cost of shipping product utilizing conventional containers. Therefore, even with existing collapsible, returnable containers, high shipping costs may be incurred on both ends, i.e., by the supplier who constantly acquires new dunnage elements and by the assembly plant which constantly must dispose of the old dunnage elements or pay to have those dunnage elements returned with the container.
Moreover, dunnage elements, depending on the size of the container, may be heavy, and as such, the assembly of the dunnage elements to accept a product can be physically stressful for the worker and may lead to job related injuries. Job related injuries increase costs. Additionally, because someone must physically assemble the dunnage, the dunnage elements and the containers have been limited in size and weight in accordance with what an average worker can physically and safely erect.
Access to the product in the containers is also a particular concern. Specifically, in the automotive industry, containers full of product are positioned on an assembly line adjacent to a work area which is associated with a particular product to be installed on a manufactured vehicle. For example, at a line position or station where interior door panels are installed onto a door, a container full of door panels is positioned at the station for access by the line worker. The product or part is taken directly from the container and is used on the line. However, access to some existing containers may be difficult when removing a parts to install. Because, a line worker only has a certain amount of time to install a part, any delay in accessing a part is undesirable. Furthermore, the repetitive motion of accessing parts to install on a vehicle from some containers can be difficult or straining to line workers since it must be done many times during a shift. Likewise, repetitively having to assemble or erect a dunnage structure can be wearisome for workers.
Some existing products have recognized some of these needs and have provided returnable, collapsible containers with integral dunnage. For example, U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,725,119; 6,062,410; 6,230,916 and 6,540,096, all of which are fully incorporated by reference herein, illustrate various containers and structures. While such products have provided many desirable benefits, such as reducing overall container and shipping costs, improvements are still desirable.
Accordingly, it is an objective of the present invention to reduce the force required to erect a dunnage structure in a returnable and reusable container.
It is further an objective of the present invention to allow larger or heaver dunnage systems to be used in returnable and reusable containers without increasing the required lifting force that must be applied to erect such dunnage.
It is also an object of the present invention to allow for the use of larger collapsible containers with more dunnage to allow shipment of more parts than heretofore possible.
It is further an objective of the present invention to reduce the likelihood of on the job injuries related to the assembly or erection of a dunnage structure within a returnable and reusable container.
These objectives and other objectives will become more readily apparent from the further description of the invention below.